Subject: Pro-Tyranny Propaganda 101 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, I think the writers for the St. Petersburg Times (in Florida) have been reading my "Tyrant" book. I can't resist using a recent article on Ron Paul as a prime example of how tyrants use propaganda to control what people think, and what people do. First, here is the link for the article: http://tinyurl.com/3yrjuy Let's consider some of the tyrant tricks used in that "story." I'll simply include a few clips from the story, along with excerpts from my book, "How To Be a Successful Tyrant." (Remember, the book is written from the point of view of telling people how to be tyrants.) 1) First, the pieces is disguised as a "news story," written by an objective "journalist." >From my book: "Almost as important as getting your message out is getting it out in such a way as to give the impression that the message is not coming from you. ... In this way, your message, delivered to the masses via someone perceived as an independent thinker, can get mass support for your agenda, without it looking as if you were the one pushing for more power. ... [O]ne of the best ways to ensure that your subjects are getting a daily dose of your indoctrination is to control the 'news' they are exposed to. Of course, just reporting significant facts and occurrences provides no opportunity for thought control, but deciding which facts to mention, which facts to ignore, which 'facts' to make up, and how to spin the facts, while throwing in opinion-shaping messages disguised as 'reporting,' can give enormous control. The skillful tyrant controls the message, not by blatant censorship and state-owned media, but by more subtle means of 'influence.' ... [I]f the media appears to [the public] to be a neutral and objective 'free press,' your ability to control their thoughts and beliefs will be enormous. ... Like any other business, 'the press' can be controlled and manipulated without the use of open force. If you can get people of like mind (i.e., elitists who think they have every right to rule the 'unwashed masses') to hold the highest positions at the newspapers, TV stations, etc., they will push your agenda for you, without the need of a conscious conspiracy. ... In any hierarchical organization, all you need to do is have an ally at the top, and the underlings will naturally 'evolve' to match your agenda. Think of it as 'trickle-down tyranny,' where those who see eye to eye with the top dog will get promoted, will have job security, etc., while those who see things differently will naturally want to leave, or will get fired, or will at least get muzzled." 2) The first time the article mentions Ron Paul, it describes him as "a gaunt, grumpy, 10-term congressman." Later it mentions that Dr. Paul has "personal wealth" of between 1.5 and 4 million dollars. >From my book: "In addition to belittling the opinions of your opponents, be sure also to frequently demonize those who hold those opinions. The moment you question people's motives, they will almost always shift to defending themselves instead of arguing their original point." 3) The article says Ron Paul's speeches "resemble an economics lecture, not graceful oratory." >From my book: "If the average peasant has to choose between 'free goodies for all!' (your message) and an academic explanation of the long-term benefits of free market economics, he will almost always choose free stuff. When the peasants view you as an all-powerful Santa Claus, they will hate anyone who attempts to rid them of their childish delusion. ... Your average public 'debate' (on any subject) usually consists of a battle of personalities, with the most arrogant, assertive, and condescending winning out, and the timid and unsure (or even just polite) caving in. Actual substance, proof and logic usually have very little to do with who 'wins.' It is far easier to browbeat the peasants into agreeing with your tyrannical plans (or at least refraining from speaking out against them) than it is to present a rational argument for why they would be better off enslaved by you than free (because no rational argument supports such a claim)." 4) The article quotes one Republican (who ran against Ron Paul) as saying that people are seeing Dr. Paul "for what he is now, and they are alarmed," and quotes another saying that Dr. Paul is a "nutcase." >From my book: "As mentioned before, you must demean and vilify [your opponents] so that the rest of the peasants won't want to be associated with them or even listen to their 'fringe extremist' (anti-you) beliefs. Constantly characterize their ideas as absurd, ridiculous, and even dangerous. ... Use whatever nasty stereotypes and demonization tactics you must to make the group look distasteful to the other peasants. Paint them as dangerous, mentally unstable, paranoid and delusional." 5) The article then lists Ron Paul's supporters as "people who want prostitution legalized, taxpayers who oppose paying taxes, a white supremacist running for the Florida state House, and those who think the Sept. 11 attacks were a government conspiracy." The article also says that Ron Paul's "rugged honesty" is "endearing him to a menagerie of political misfits and castoffs." >From my book: "You can paint a detailed (though inaccurate) picture of your opponents in such a way that no one wants to be associated with them, and therefore no one wants to oppose you for fear of being associated with the unpleasant stereotype that you fabricated. ... The message should always be clear: 'You either support my plans or you're a despicable low-life.'" 6) The article says that Ron Paul's views "have earned him a cultlike following, particularly online." >From my book: "Because people can express opinions anonymously [on the internet], they can say what they really think without fear of ostracism, and can see other, like-minded people saying the same things. About all you can do is vilify the lot of them, and even impugn the internet itself as the place where the wacko crazies talk, as opposed to the sources of information you control, which are where the informed, civilized people talk." 7) The article repeatedly pushes the idea that Ron Paul cannot possibly win because he has no mainstream support, saying that he is "what pundits always thought he would be--an also-ran," adding that "History says he has no shot," and saying that Ron Paul should be "a presidential afterthought by now." >From my book: "If you can't dupe a majority of the people into actually supporting your agenda, just lie about it: tell your peasants that most people support your agenda. Make up or badly distort 'poll' results. ... Unless they bother to do a poll of their own, they will never know that you lied. ... People, particularly the weak-minded, want to 'fit in' more than they want to know the truth. If 100 peasants believe 'A,' but you can convince each one of them that the other 99 believe 'B' instead, very few will still publicly state A. And if only 10 dare to speak out in favor of A, the other 90 will each assume that only ten other people believe in A. Each will believe himself to be in the minority, and will therefore censor himself, rather than risking saying something he thinks is unpopular." - ---------------------------------------- So, in summary, like a good tyrant mouthpiece, the "journalist" pushed the points that Ron Paul is an unpleasant, fringe nutcase whom only unsavory people would support, and that he has no real support from "normal" people and so has no chance of winning. Therefore, resistance is futile, so you should give up now. (That's also what the leftist media said about the conservatives, just before the 1994 "Republican Revolution," and then they feigned surprise when it happened anyway.) Now for the worst news: Most Americans fall for such idiotic propaganda--hook, line, and sinker. They will follow what they think is popular. "Popular opinion" is simply MANUFACTURED, and then the braindead sheep follow along, proud to be "in the know," and in the mainstream. They eagerly "fit in," while advocating their own enslavement. It's pathetic how well the same old tyrant tricks still work on the unthinking public. Sincerely, Larken Rose http://www.larkenrose.com (P.S. No, I still don't advocate voting for anyone, including Ron Paul. I still think it does more damage to legitimize "democracy" by participating in it, than providing any possible benefit. The term "wasted vote" is redundant.) (P.P.S. In case you doubt the top-down, pro-tyranny agenda of mainstream papers, the above article was in the same St. Petersburg Times which was all set to run my "Please Prosecute Me" thing, as a paid ad--for a lot of money--when the higher-ups intervened and said it couldn't run. That even surprised the advertising guy at the Times.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkcU8UgACgkQGmVFo/iGj31t7AP9G5dtP39ei4HfTxVNEfMJ5xOg8oIs FYBVYr8PAL/8hxyyoKtOECMLUNlbz3Yi073dGNFXHR/I6epI5c0jfZ3Ffwl0Z1YoYbeh sloD06JNT/kqv/QSbIyIkwtfCpIX+MOMZ3cGW7sAid+n1pMzJ11rRNX0zp1/YKKhASYE O1gip/8= =xuyZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to tmds-on@mail-list.com To contact the list owner, send your message to tmds-list-owner@mail-list.com